Opinion
Case No. 19-cv-02926-JD
01-31-2020
SILVIA A BRANDON PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. No. 14
In a prior order, the Court denied pro se plaintiff Silvia Brandon Perez's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend because it did not state a plausible federal claim. Dkt. No. 8. After obtaining a continuance, Perez filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 14.
The Court's sua sponte review of the new complaint shows that it is the same as the original complaint in all material respects. Perez did not provide any new facts to make her federal civil rights or discrimination claims actionable at the pleadings stage. Consequently, the second amended complaint is dismissed. In the absence of a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The dismissal is with prejudice for the federal claims. Perez has been afforded an extra measure of consideration as a pro se litigant, but has come up short after multiple opportunities to amend, and continuances to fit her schedule. See Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-CV-01514-JD, 2016 WL 7888025, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2016), aff'd, 715 F. App'x 737 (9th Cir. 2018). The state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, and Perez is free to bring them in California state court. See Doe v. Sempervirens Mental Health Facility, No. 14-CV-00816-JD, 2015 WL 4238242, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2015) (quoting Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999)).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 31, 2020
/s/_________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge